Ask The Chief Examiner Options

[jm-hamilton]

Hello....Earth calling the Chief Examiner......is there anybody out there? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

Isn't this a little rude? Would you say it to her face? Just wondering.

Sorry if it came across that way, not meant to be rude - but why start a thread and then leave us all hanging? I'm sure CT has a sense of humour and will take the remark in the spirit it was intended.

But she's not keeping us hanging. It says in the first post that her replies will be on a monthly to 6 weekly basis - the thread only started on May 9th so we've got a while yet before we get a response from her.

[sarah-flute]

Yes, it has been less than a week! Give the woman a chance! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[EdGJ]

As I said originally, Clara will provide a collection of answers to a selection of the most popular and interesting questions every four to six weeks - it would be a huge task to answer every query individually (and immediately) and her other responsibilities are fairly important! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If we find that the thread is particularly popular we may revise that timescale but it will remain in place for now.

I looked at this thread this morning for the first time and found it quite frustrating because of the way all the topics are mixed up. Wouldn't it be more helpful to Clara if there were a way to keep questions and comments on e.g. scales and aural tests separate? I felt I could usefully do a composite response to six messages about aural tests and eleven about scales. Whether I shall manage either or not remains to be seen...

Hi dacapo,

If the thread remains as popular as it is now we may consider creating more focused topics within a broad 'Ask the Chief Examiner' theme but for now we would rather not lead the debate by imposing restrictive structures from above - it's intriguing to see which questions and areas of interest are most popular when people have the freedom to ask whatever they like.

[Edwardo]

As someone who had to work VERY hard to achieve a pass at Grade VIII piano, I think it's a pity but pretty predictable that people here are effectively asking for the higher grades to be "dumbed down" (fewer scales, less/no aural etc.)

One of the true glories of the ABRSM exams is that they're more or less the same as they always were (except for the pieces offered in List C, natch (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) ) There's none of the "coursework" element that has so degraded academic exams at GCSE and A level - if you pass Grade VI now you're just as good as someone who passed it ten, twenty, thirty years ago.

Some people upthread - possibly teachers - mentioned pupils who were struggling for hours and hours to learn the 100+ scales for the higher grades. Surely this is more a sign that those people have reached their natural plateau of passing exams? Or maybe they need to take a bit more time before moving on - learning new repertoire etc. I found some aspects of the Grade VIII syllabus extremely challenging - legato scales in major thirds, for example - but if this were taken out of the syllabus Grade VIII would be diminished.

I guess it's all symptomatic of the current trends in education, that everyone should go on to higher education, whereas any sensible analysis would show that you should concentrate on what you're good at. Otherwise we'll end up in the ridiculous situation where being able to play Fur Elise will be sufficient for FRSM.

Edward

[Wobby]

On the idea of sight-singing being scrapped from the practical exam, I would agree, but not necessarily on the basis of other's arguements - I don't think the problem is in the singing itself, but the relevance to the practical exam. I think that perhaps rather than scrapping it altogether, it should be moved into either higher level Theory exams, or possibly an optional part of the possible 'Composition Exams' mentioned below? Because I think it is there to test a musician's ability to hear the basic tune of the song before they play it, which would tie into good groundings in theory and composition, surely, rather than the practical aspect?

I would like to know if the board has any plans to introduce graded examinations in composition please?

I love this idea! And then if this idea goes through:

Possibly, with each of the candidate composer's permission, they could be used for the sight-reading pieces instead - my main problem with sight-reading at times was the sense that they occasionally they didn't feel like real pieces... at least if they were pieces the candidate composer's composed, then a) The sight-reading would have the structure of a genuine piece, and b) It would be a very nice compliment to the candidate composers too, and might make them more enthusiastic in their work! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Or, maybe (I'm probably pushing my luck) use the best candidate compositions of the grade they're composing for as available choices for part of the contemporary pieces for List C? Then it really would be 'music of the modern people'! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

(Or, if the idea doesn't go through, then maybe use some people's compositions in the Theory exam for Sight-reading Grade 1/2?)

And the real irony of scales is only a few will be asked for in the exam and are only 21 out of 150 marks. For my grade 8 clarinet I spent literally hours memorising them, utterly ridiculous amounts, for 5 minutes of an exam. For grade 8 sax I basically left them to chance, just some work the week before the exam, doing most work on the pieces.

I ended up with 16/21 for scales both times. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Hmm... although this is not really another suggestion, I think that this helps demonstrate my point in favour of not scrapping the multitude of scales.

I think the idea of lots of scales is that if you are at a sufficient standard and have played lots of pieces in different keys, then you should have naturally improved in your scales. And then you are being tested on this 'natural improvement'.

I think the main reason that people are likely to complain is that they spend hours trying to master every scale, being the perfectionists musicians are, when perhaps the purpose was just to get a general grasp of the musicians abilities from the way they play scales without having addition practice. And not being able to play a certain scale at all would show poor roundness of ability, no? The purpose of increasing the number of scales with the grade is to demostrate a musician's ability to play in many keys, so if they have played a piece in that certain key, then they should at least be able to do OK in it.

And thus onto Neil's point, maybe the latter way in which he left the scales down to his natural ability was what was expected of candidates all along?

So maybe either increase the number of scales heard by the examiner (but let the candidates know that this should not mean that they spend hours trying to perfect each and every scale, but play with their natural improved ability at playing over time), or reduce the percentage that scales takes, and put more on pieces or something? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

~Wobby~

[snhs]

I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

...and yet you'd demand that the sections you don't like of the aural section should be dismissed just that easily... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Scales serve a purpose which aid in the developement of musical ability on the instrument you are playing. I fail to see how singing back four bar phrases will aid my flute playing or anything else for that matter. Then there is the factor of how useful it will be e.g. will a conductor ever ask you stand up and start singing a four bar passage previously played by the bassons?

[jacobvaneyck]

I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

...and yet you'd demand that the sections you don't like of the aural section should be dismissed just that easily... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Then there is the factor of how useful it will be e.g. will a conductor ever ask you stand up and start singing a four bar passage previously played by the bassons?

Or play a scale? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[sarah-flute]

I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

...and yet you'd demand that the sections you don't like of the aural section should be dismissed just that easily... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Then there is the factor of how useful it will be e.g. will a conductor ever ask you stand up and start singing a four bar passage previously played by the bassons?

Or play a scale? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Touche (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[snhs]

In theory that is possible, but remember as long as any attempt is made you get at least 6/18 (correct me if I'm wrong) so you would have to get pretty dismal marks elsewhere to fail on the aural part alone.

To be quite honest I think a rounded musicicianship approach is good because it makes 'exam-driven' teachers and pupils concentrate on the complete musician, not rote learning three pieces and a few scales. I know some disagree with me on this but this is how I feel about the system.

Well just going over it mathematically if you get 20 on each of the pieces thats you up to 60, 16 for scales and sight reading, which takes you to 92. Thereby 8 marks make the difference between pass and fail. There are of course other permutations e.g. 10 on sight reading, 23 on two pieces, 20 on study, 17 for scales giving 93 and 7 required to pass. I think in sich cases a trained singer would have a distinct change of passing whereas an instrumentalist is doubtful to.

Since when was singing part of rounded musicianship? If you are a singer it makes sense to sing but if you are an instrumentalist it will seldom if ever be required therefore in examination terms it serves no valid purpose.

I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

...and yet you'd demand that the sections you don't like of the aural section should be dismissed just that easily... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Then there is the factor of how useful it will be e.g. will a conductor ever ask you stand up and start singing a four bar passage previously played by the bassons?

Or play a scale? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If i'm ever asked to play a scalic passage i think the conductor would appreciate me being able to play that scale well. I rather doubt standing up and singing it instead of playing the passage would work as well. Do you?

Ultimately a lot of people will like what they are good at and want rid of what they are not. Those not confident singing back, for example will want rid of that section. Those who do it naturally want it left. Same applies to scales, sight-reading.

My point exactly - I am not 100% convinced by some of the current syllabus requirements, but saying that one set of requirements must be in or it makes the exam too easy, and yet dismissing another set out of hand... I found snhs's post quite ironic......

Don't get me started on irony i've just started trying to forget English before my other exams start.
The fact is scales become easy through practice for everyone. If they practice with sufficient rigour it will eventually fall into place and apart from anything else they are crucial to playing the instrument well. Singing on the other hand does not always improve with practice and has no bearing on how well i play my instrument thereby it has no place in an exam which tests instrumental ability.

[No, reducing the number of scales required for the higher grades will not decrease the difficulty of the exams. Scales are not that difficult, it is the time involved in practising them that needs to be reduced. Katyjay said earlier that she spent 2 hours working through the scales for a recorder exam. Given that scales are worth 21 marks and pieces 30 marks each, how much time is a higher grade exam going to need? I'm not against scales, but I just think the quantity required at the higher grades is ludicrous and I know I'm not alone in this. Quite a few colleagues have changed their candidates from AB exams to TG because of them.

How long do you think we spend playing the 3 pieces for the exam? I think if you added up the time it would be somewhat in excess of 3 times that spent on scales.
As to decreasing the difficulty i was told by a music teacher in schol that the SQA by decreasing the level of pieces required by a grade was not decreasing the difficulty of the exam as whole. If her argument was correct then yours might well be but i disagree on both counts.

[jacobvaneyck]

A thread for questions to the Chief Examiner is not really the place to debate these issues, but you seem to be confusing necessity of a skill with the ability to improve through practise. It is not that black and white. Some will improve scales and singing and anything else through more practise. Others will hit a brick wall with any of these things depending on where their strengths lie. Sorry, not as simple as you make it out to be.

I take your point about the mathematics of aural, but still, 20 for pieces is quite poor and for all pieces even more so. A lot of people will have one or maybe two weaker marks but if all are that poor you are relying on making up with the aural. That is not the purpose of it.

There is a whole seperate thread in this (if not a doctoral thesis (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) )

[Cyrilla]

Since when was singing part of rounded musicianship?

Since man first opened his mouth and sang?

Singing on the other hand does not always improve with practice

In my experience, it does.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[snhs]

My difficulty is the sheer number of scales (I'm thinking of piano) particularly in grade 5 and 6. Quite how the board could cut them down a bit - which ones to leave out - I don't know, that needs a bit more thinking about. I think I'm right in saying that ABRSM have completely disposed of scales for their Diploma exams (correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't like aural either, never have done, but I don't think it should be taken out of the exam, and to me it seems a lot easier now than the aurals I had to do when I was doing piano grade exams. So people don't like them, well that's tough, learning to do things with good grace that we don't like doing or find difficult is part of life.

I'm not sure about the Dips but if they have cut them out it will only be because they are already covered in Gr.8. Hence they can presuppose that you are able to play them.
I did tone down my get rid of aurals altogether stance. As i said earlier the naming of cadences and analysis of passages does play a significant role and is beneficial for future tasks including some aspects of the Dips Viva Voce and Programme notes. In the actual sung element they appear to serve no purpose in the overall development of instrumental thereby they serve no purpose in an instrumental exam.

[loops]

Speaking as a professional educator, albeit not music, arguing from the point of view of whether changes are dumbing down,
or whether particular individuals are consistent in their point of view, is pointless. It can only go round in circles as we are seeing.

The professional way out of the impasse is to decide on your objectives; what do you want to be able to say about someone who has passed, with the minimum mark, a certain exam? These need to be assessable, realistic
and relevant.

It seems to me that scales, aural and sightreading are on a list of useful skills that were decided to be assessable.
There are other possibilities such as improvisation, historical knowledge of the chosen pieces etc etc that could
well vie for space in an exam. So, that is one problem.

Next, you have to decide does the assessment test the objectives. And here we have the crux of the arguments we are seeing.
How many scales? What sort of aural?

To answer these, you have to go back to the objectives.....

If the objective is to have instantaneous memory recall of 200 plus scales and arpeggios, then that is what the
test should have, but you shouldn't then also test how beautifully all 200 are played (unrealistic).
If the objective is to understand them, then there should be a little time allowed to work
them out (instead of being penalised for hesitating). If the objective is to play beautiful pearly scales, then why not
restrict the number you can ask? If you play several of them beautifully, no doubt you can play similar ones beautifully
if necessary given a little practice time. And so on.

Arguing over the objectives is an informative process and it's easier to agree on what is a fair exam if you have clear
objectives.

[snhs]

It seems unfair to test something which cannot be improved through effort.

Actually I thought that memory efficiency could be improved by effort/practice...? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

exactly Sarah - I think you are absolutely right. The more you do the better/easier it will become. Definitely.
As Neil said also, you can't really choose the bits you are good at and reject the tricky bits (for you)...

I don't know but i think this is demonstrating my point. It is possible to improve scales through practice just as it is possible to improve memory. It is not, however, always possible to pitch notes based on one four bar passage. Why should there be a component which precludes people from doing well and, as Neil concedes, getting a distinction or even a pass based on a variable over which they have no control.

[Wobby]

loops: Yes. And going back to my last point, I believe in scales they are testing your knowledge and the speed to which you adapt to different keys, and not trying to get 'beautiful pearly scales'.


I assume they just want to see whether a musician can adapt to different keys quickly (i.e. so not too long a hesitation) and their understanding of the scales (i.e. fairly fluent) - both of which I presume the expect to improve as one's standard improves with time.


Therefore, perhaps it is lack of understanding from the candidates in that they are not expected to perfect every single individual scale; rather they should play the scales as they would be in their natural state? Thus, the multitude of scales would not be too unrealistic, as they didn't want you to perfect each one, thus the reason for having so many in the first place? After all, it is an examination session and not an 'improvement session'. (The suggested improvements are to come from the evaluation after the exam - I thought that was the point!) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


But maybe I've got it wrong? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)


Anyway, let's get back onto the issue - I've already kind of made my suggestions in the last post (although they'll only work if somebody else's suggestion is accepted)! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

~Wobby~